For those still interested in the Classic flavor of the iPod, there is now a 120GB storage option replacing the 80GB model. We had a feeling that this one was coming and after the Zune 120 was confirmed, we knew it to be true. The price is set at $249.99, which works out to the same as the Zune 120 and older iPod Classic 80GB model.
The monstrous 160GB iPod Classic model was axed. Sorry folks.
“The monstrous 320GB iPod Classic model was axed. Sorry folks.”
Uh…. that’s a nice wishful thinking. I’d take one, tho, I mean I could use the other 160 GB for data and stuff.
Seriously, I think, you mean the 160 GB model ;)
There never was anything wrong with the 160GB Classic. All they’ve done now is sell you the same product for a high price with less memory.
Good lord, unless it’s full of other crap besides music, and I mean a lot of useless crap that you don’t need to have on a friggin’ ipod, 160gb is overkill. The normal consumer that listens to music is barely going to have 1/20 of that.
Actually, I need 320 gb. I’m making a collection of every album of ever band that I like as well as every bootleg I can find for them. There is no way a 160 GB will work for me, I’m going with the 320 GB Archos. If the ever release a 320 gb ipod it will probably be about the same price as the archos anyway ($540) The decision not to release a 320 GB this year will probably lose them a lot of customers who want more space.
Any real music fan needs more space. If you have 1000 plus CDs ripped at 320 kbps plus some podcasts and video then the 160GB classic is already near full. Bring on the 320 GB.
I wonder what you are listening to if you think that 320 kbps sounds better than 128, I am an audio engineer and on the monitors in my studio I can hear a difference between raw audio and mp3’s, but virtually no difference between 128 and 320, and especially on headphones you would fail a blind test. That said, how much of a true music fan are you if you have 1000 cd’s worth of music. Did you buy them? I suspect not. I own over 800 CD’s because I am a real music fan who supports talent and if I can fit my entire music collection on a 120gb ipod with decent mp3 compression I would defy anyone to tell me “real” music fans need more. If that isn’t computer geek logic I dont know what is.
Brett,
You are kidding right? I too am a sound engineer and you would be stupid, especially if you have a decent set of headphones or stereo speakers to destroy any music by playing it at 128kbps. Its rubbish, hone your ears mate. As for music I have about 600 CDs I have bought over the years and know a bunch of people who own well over 1000. Get off your righteous wagon. SOme people have stacks of money and like a wide range of music so 1000 CDs is nothing! Real music fans don’t stick to a few genres. I don’t claim to be one but know plenty who are. As for 320Gb, why not? if the battery lasts then fill er up and spin her!
here look man plenty of people have ridicously large music collections that they’ve ‘bought’…though even 320gb wouldn’t be enough to consolidate my entire music collection…i’ve over 1000 vinyls alone, about double that in CD’s (some copied of course, though alot of those are just doubles of records I have), and about 350gb of Mp3’s…you can’t hear the difference between 128 and 320? come on, listen to the bass and the highs, its all plastic and horrible…though I think what would be nice about larger DAP drives would be to start making a move out of MP3 altogether, to flac or lossless…
As a huge music and movie fan who also happens to be a soldier, a 320GB or bigger would be great. I have almost completely filled up my 160GB in preparation for my upcoming deployment. I have over a thousand CD’s and almost 500 movies. Why is that a big deal? It certainly doesn’t make me any less of a true music fan. As a former classic rock DJ, I have a deep appreciation for all kinds of music and fill my iPod with all my favorite music and movies. I say the more memory, the better!
Just a question about something that has been bugging me for months. I have just converted my entire library from 128 MP3 (Not LAME or anything like that just bog standard MP3) to 256 AAC in iTunes (before I used WMP to convert my music) I do notice a real difference in clarity and sharpness now, whether it’s just my imagination I don’t know, but what I really wanted to know is, what are the main differences between MP3 and AAC. Some people have said 256 MP3 vs 256 AAC are virtually identical, others have said MP3 is superior and others AAC is superior. I have tried googling many sites about this and opinions vary greatly. I was just wondering if anyone could shed any light on this? (Remember I am talking bog standard MP3, not LAME or similar). I know MP3 is more widely used and more players out there support MP3 than AAC, but I am willing to for go this in favour of superior sound, after all if my iPod were to break i’d basically just buy another.
Thanks.
One word: LOSSLESS
Using Apple’s lossless encoding takes about 300-400 MB per CD. I own over 600 CDs which would take somewhere between 180MB – 240MB. So yes, I could use a 320MB iPod for true CD quality for every album.
No, I don’t buy every cd I listen too. Then again I AM a musician. Ever think that proliferating music expands that talent that you so love to support? I get tons of influence and learn thousands of musical ideas and techniques just by downloading the work of some new group, that I would never have purchased anyway. I’m sure tons of young musicians will flourish and talent will expand greatly as a result of music being readily available for download.
I apologize cory, wasn’t replying to you wanted to add a new comment…